Neat. From the article it does sound like blood is transfused a little too readily. I went in expecting to hear about immune reactions - what causes deadly transfusion reactions - and was surprised to read about fluid overload instead. I'd be curious to know more about why transfused patients have higher rates of infection than otherwise similar, non-transfused patients._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

well, of course, we can't put ourselves in thy's shoes because thy is constantly reinventing himself every day as a being that chooses to wear new shoes even though they strangely look like the exact same shoes he has always worn and has absolutely no continuity whatsoever with the beings from the past which also wore shoes that strangely look like the exact same shoes he has always worn but he assures us are actually different shoes

Oh, it's not that you can't, it's more likely that you're afraid to try.

Neat. From the article it does sound like blood is transfused a little too readily. I went in expecting to hear about immune reactions - what causes deadly transfusion reactions - and was surprised to read about fluid overload instead. I'd be curious to know more about why transfused patients have higher rates of infection than otherwise similar, non-transfused patients.

I think it could lead to doctors being more reserved when it comes to giving patients blood transfusions. Might be a plus because it would ease the demand for blood off somewhat and would help make sure there is more of a reserve for people who actually require a blood transfusion.

Also, yes, this was destined for the News thread, somehow it ended up here._________________The Thirties dreamed white marble and slipstream chrome, immortal crystal and burnished bronze, but the rockets on the covers of the Gernsback pulps had fallen on London in the dead of night, screaming. - William Gibson, The Gernsback Continuum

Op says- I understand that women only places need to be around but I do not understand the justification that has been told to me for ones that are not directly related to their safety(my interpretation). He even says

Drowemos wrote:

We are not talking about support groups here after all. Obviously an abuse support group has to be restrictive

So he agrees that safe places need to exist. He does not like the justification for women only "clubs". He does not mind if they continue he would just like that they are either explained in terms of equality instead of segregation or admit that it does not further feminism even though they are still a necessity in our current world.

Drowemos wrote:

Why shut down the men's clubs and then create women's clubs?

Is the way new people are treated here some kind of hazing ritual, a decision to be mean and discrimitory to those who approach to gain knowledge(from a webcomic of all places), or something else?

I know a few of you actually tried to help but most did not. Most chose to reply about something other, although distantly related, than what was actually being discussed. Many of you would make fine politicians as you know how to derail a conversation and make yourself feel better while making your opponent frustrated, upset, and unable to continue without slipping up.

Ps he did not compair feminist to the kkk he compared the to the ACLU.

There is a 200+ page thread, chock full to the brim of answers to his question.

Again I said some tried to help. But then you have people going on about the need of women's shelters after he says we are not talking about support groups. There are people going on about how he compared feminist to kkk when he did not. And there is a long one going on about trans people when he said cross dressers and tran, witch shows he is making a distinction simply because he said both, although I do see how if you where constantly thrown together with the other group it would be a hot button even if it is not what actually happened. It is like politicians, that push their agenda that is related but not directly answering the question, who feel obligated to make their apponent look bad and derail the conversation.

Just because there is an answer somewhere else, without pointing them there, it does not justify acting like a bad politician. It is like if you came to my area without GPS or a map and you are lost and asked me for directions and I refused to give them to you because somewhere out there is a map or another GPS.

The implication might be that everyone here is kind of getting tired of people swinging by to demand we explain things to them.

Given that there's a 200+ page thread chock full to the brim with answers.

And the link should be tho go to answer. Imagine this

Poster posts stupid question

Someone replies with simple link to thread, or if they are feeling especially nice a link to where in the thread their specific question is answered.

Then nothing you leave the person to their own devices until they read the thread. Let them make an ass of
Themselves being the sole poster in their thread. If they do read it and do not find an answer to their original question then they can ask again but in a more informed manner.

My desire is just for people to be able to approach others without speaking down to them and maybe help them learn. I know this is allot to hope for from a group of forum goers, especially this group of forum goers, but I would be happy if I am able to just make someone think twice before posting like a politician. I do not in any way delude myself into believing it will actually work but for the moment I am going to put in a little effort and try.

Just because there is an answer somewhere else, without pointing them there, it does not justify acting like a bad politician.

would that include whiningly white-knighting someone who was not here to argue in good faith?

protip: yes, it would

drowemos was not here to actually look for an explanation about women-only spaces. he came here with his own (ridiculous) definitions of it and refused to entertain any others. his entire goal was to find a way to blame it, and systemic inequality, on feminists. he even went so far as to say feminists should claim that it is their fault that women-only spaces have to exist. you are interpreting him as the victim because it suits your agenda, not because it is a reasonable interpretation of this thread.

you'd make a fine bad politician too. in fact, a finer one than anyone here! the casting-stones-while-living-in-a-glass-house thing really sells it. are you going to tell us all about the importance of family values and the sanctity of traditional marriage while cheating on your spouse now? i always love that one!

he even went so far as to say feminists should claim that it is their fault that women-only spaces have to exist.

My interpretation of this was that the reasoning for women only places described to him should be for equality or admittance that they are currently needed even if they go against equality or admit that they are not truly about feminism. Again referencing "clubs" and not safe places. Although he did make some bad judgment calls on how to explain some things.

ShadowCell wrote:

are you going to tell us all about the importance of family values and the sanctity of traditional marriage while cheating on your spouse now? i always love that one!

Nope. Traditional marriage is for those who find love that way and believe in monogamy. I personally believe that your lovelife does not have to be traditional in any way. I would prefer that people went about it in ways so as to not intentionally hurt their partners but it is in no way binding as my personal values are in no way binding to anyone else. I feel that if any human wants to put themselves in a relationship that has set rules, such as marriage, with another human than they should be allowed to do it no matter the sex or gender or lack their of.